I tried to submit a new Wayspot for some trail markers, for pedestrian paths, really beautiful ones that go from one farmhouse to another across different municipalities, but it was rejected, and there wasn’t even a reason given.
I even used an upgrade because I honestly didn’t think there would be any problems with it, since I’ve seen plenty of similar trail markers and they seem to match the guidelines.
But it was still rejected.
Are they not allowed? Did I do something wrong? Why didn’t I even get a reason for the rejection?
Thank you
They tweaked the rejection reasons lately, and sometimes I don’t see what it is on my contributions page until I log out and back in. If you do that, does the reason show up underneath “Not accepted”?
I revisori hanno fornito questi motivi principali per non aver accettato questa proposta:
L’accesso alla proposta potrebbe non essere sicuro o non accessibile al pubblico
Objectively, since it is a pedestrian path for those who want to take walks in the hills, I don’t see anything wrong with it. Besides, these are intra-municipal routes, and the signs are put up by the municipalities themselves, who clearly consider walking along these roads to be safe — otherwise, they wouldn’t take on the responsibility. So what’s the point in rejecting the application?
So what would the rule be, then — if there’s asphalt, it’s not safe?
Even if those responsible for the safety of the area judge it differently?
Reviewers gave these main reasons for not accepting this proposal:
Access to the proposal may not be secure or publicly accessible
In that supporting photo, I was also wondering if this sign had safe pedestrian access. If you do try to resubmit, you will need a supporting photo that demonstrates that pedestrian access is safe. I don’t know how to suggest that from what I see here. I am not familiar with this part of the world, so I would recommend you get some more local responses before trying again.
You could also try an appeal to Niantic if you believe that you can prove this sign is safe for pedestrians to access. But keep in mind you only have 2 appeals, each on a 20 day counter before you can use them again.
Edited to include the link to the clarification about trail markers since that was the original question. This appears very similar to the first example to me:
When I evaluate applications, I check the authenticity of the application. In a case like this, if official pedestrian paths exist, that’s it — for me, there’s no need for further proof.
I mean, the evaluator should also make at least a minimal effort to check and gather information, right? Because even if someone provides links or other material, the evaluator should still verify their authenticity, shouldn’t they?
In this case, a simple search is enough to find both of the paths indicated by the signs in question.
And what’s the issue supposed to be? Are we seriously supposed to believe that someone would create pedestrian paths where people risk being mowed down by speeding cars? Really?
Anyway, thanks. I’ll try to file an appeal, including links and information that I suppose won’t even be looked at — because if they had been, the application would have already been approved.
Apparently, it’s faster to reject something than to actually take the time to gather information.
